Adrian Newey, Red Bull, Hungaroring, 2014

Force equal engine supplies from manufacturers – Newey

2016 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Red Bull’s chief technical officer Adrian Newey has urged the FIA to force manufacturers to supply their customer teams with engines that are identical to their own in every respect.

Speaking to The National, Newey pointed out that while some manufacturers provide their customer teams with the same hardware, their engine buyers often cannot obtain the same software and fuel as those used by the factory team.

“If you take the engines built by Mercedes or Ferrari, when they supply those engines to their customer teams, the customers don’t get the same engine – not in the software anyway,” said Newey. “The software becomes very important now.”

“So we are in this position where Mercedes have a very good, very powerful engine. Their customer teams don’t get the same specifications. So it is difficult for their customer teams to beat the Mercedes team.”

Newey believes the rules could be changed to make F1 more competitive. “The actual physical engine has to be the same, the ones supplied to the customer teams,” he said. “But it’s not just the physical hardware, it’s also the petrol and the software.”

“So the first thing you can do is to change the regulations so that customer teams have the same software and the same fuel, if they wish to, as the works team.”

Red Bull will continue to use Renault engines this year as the French manufacturer makes its return to F1 as a full constructor. Red Bull’s engine will be branded by TAG-Heuer.

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2016 F1 season, Adrian NeweyTags , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 186 comments on “Force equal engine supplies from manufacturers – Newey”

    1. I dont understand how and why the Senior Figures at Red Bull Racing believe they have the right to everything.
      I dont see them providing other teams with their own secrets for their chassis prowess, And understandably so, they’ve spent hundreds of millions the same way the engine manufacturers have spent millions in R&D of these power units. They are not entitled to have the same fuel or the same software as the works team.
      They get engine parity somehow, fine, good for them. They dont, they shouldn’t bitch about it.

      1. I dont see them providing other teams with their own secrets for their chassis prowess

        Why is this being repeated over and over and over? It’s invalid and incomparable. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best aerodynamics or chassis. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

        Newey is right. It’s a farce that the FIA allows for PU manufacturers to decide who gets 2015-spec or 2016-spec PU’s. It’s anticompetitive, hands down. They will supply the best spec to those that they’re not afraid of and a worse spec to those that they are afraid of. There’s a difference between having a tiered F1 because not all teams are as good in development, and having a tiered F1 a priori because the manufacturers in control get to put the other teams in lower tiers.

        There’s a reason why the rules pre-2016 have included that the customer teams should receive the same spec engines/PU’s as the constructor teams. The day they changed this was a sad day.

        1. @ mattDS….exactly so. red bull are not demanding anything. newey is simply stating a fact…. mercedes and ferrari are determining who is competitive and who isn’t. ferrari/marchione made headlines when he said they would supply red bull, in an attempt to garner a headline, then he backed off quickly. he has since stated that they were ‘afraid’ that they would get beaten. so ferrari get to determine who is a competitor and who isn’t. F1 is a complete farce these days.

        2. It’s completely valid and comparable. There’s nothing stopping Redbull or any other team building their own engine, just like they build their own chassis and do their own aerodynamics, they just don’t have the resources to do so, just in the same way the smaller teams don’t have the resources to match Redbull in the chassis and aero departments. Redbull want the same engines as Mercedes and Ferrari without being prepared to pay the full price. Redbull would never sell their chassis to Mercedes and Ferrari at a below cost price!

          1. There’s nothing stopping Redbull or any other team building their own engine

            Anyone starting PU development now (or even last year) is pretty much doomed to fail. It’s much too late.

            just in the same way the smaller teams don’t have the resources to match Redbull in the chassis and aero departments.

            Smaller teams have been competitive before. STR created one heck of a chassis this year – but couldn’t even begin to really show it off because of the PU.
            That being said, there’s a difference between not having a business model that attracts enough sponsors, and not being able to even begin to compete although having a near unlimited budget.

            Redbull want the same engines as Mercedes and Ferrari without being prepared to pay the full price. Redbull would never sell their chassis to Mercedes and Ferrari at a below cost price!

            What on earth are you talking about? I’m sure RBR would be happy to pay the same price Williams, FI and Manor will be paying for 2016 PU’s. Are you so naive to think this is a price issue?
            Also, chassis can’t be sold, period. So no, it doesn’t even begin to compare.

            1. Of course it’s about price! Are you so naive to think Mercedes and Ferrari are covering development costs by selling to their customer teams? no where near it, but they’re prepared to take a loss for the extra marketing. They wont sell to Redbull for the same price because they wont get the same marketing exposure from their investment if Redbull are winning with their engine instead of the works team.

            2. Mercedes and Ferrari both stated their reasoning! If you hear them?

              Mercedes/Ferrari or any manufacturer spends 200/300 million on engine design will not just give it up to a team with strong relations to another engine manufacturer! But truth is half the answer!

              Red Bull is not just another team, they spend nearly same amount of R/D on chassis design, not to mention Billionaire Owner! Most other teams are just trying to see the end of the day…

          2. @ sam andrew….your analogy is totally wrong. obviously you don’t understand the R & R governing F1. each and every team must be a unique chassis builder in order to comply. engines have always been outside this regulation just like other parts, eg brakes,ECU etc etc etc. as for your diss re ‘paying the price’ you are so far off it is laughable. red bull could and would pay the same price as all the other customer teams as horner has stated on many occasions. all red bull want is to be competitive but the engine manu’s are too afraid of this little upstart ‘fizzy drinks company’. says alot about the big heritage teams eh?

            1. I understand perfectly, and of course Redbull would pay the same hugely discounted price as the other customers; Mercedes and Ferrari are getting something out of it, either additional engine data, or additional marketing, or simply to keep some of the competition alive. They don’t want to sell to Redbull at the same price because it’s a bad deal, not because they’re “too afraid”. Do you not think there is a price at which Mercedes would agree to a deal? that price is just more than Redbull are currently prepared to pay, so they’re trying to get the rules changed to force Merc to sell it at the same price. Merc will simply turn around and put the price up for all of the customers if they’re forced to sell their advantage to everyone.

          3. Of course it’s about price. Why spend millions on developing your own world beating engine?

            Complaining in interviews is much cheaper!

            1. @sam andrew…..i suggest that you read the latest comments by marchionne, they were afraid of getting beaten as he says.[ in so many words]. as for your comments re ‘discounted engines’, do you have any evidence to support your theory that they are sold cheaply to customer teams? where did you see the reasons for mercedes not selling to RB because of the cost? would love to see the evidence. how do you know the manner in which the engines are currently costed out? do you have a detailed product cost line out? are they applying any depreciation factors and at what level are mercedes amortising each and every unit? what are the support costs by team and are all costs associated with the engine merely a cost recovery or do they contain a profit margin? on a strictly basic cost out for a team running the standard 4 units per car the ‘rough’ cost per unit would be in the vicinity of US$ 4 million per each. obviously then the costs are inclusive of ‘other’ costs above and beyond material costs. please advise what they are and do they vary from team to team?

            2. And as far as I know, these engines are much more expensive than their predecessors. If Ferrari and Mercedes are already ‘losing’ money on them anyway, why do they refuse to lower the cost of these engines?

              For all we know, Mercedes and Ferrari have already won their development costs back.

        3. It’s invalid and incomparable. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best aerodynamics or chassis. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

          It’s invalid and incomparable. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best fuel or software. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

          It’s amazing how Red Bull defenders seem able to divine everything into its own special category which just happens to match closely the current perceived strengths of that team. Supposedly the racing is unfair because it is so engine-dependent now. Also we are told that it’s not fair because the engines are so restricted. And yet here is an area which permits independent teams to try to come up with something better than the manufacturers and the cry remains that the manufacturers should be forced to give additional secrets to Red Bull. Part of Red Bull’s past dominance was due to clever use of engine mapping to create downforce. Should that have been not allowed, should all of the Renault powered teams have been forced to use a single set of software and the same fuel provided by the manufacturer with no deviation from the standard? I don’t recall Red Bull suggesting it when it could find an advantage.

          1. It’s invalid and incomparable. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best fuel or software. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

            Fuel, I can follow. Software not: PU’s are a black box to the customer teams and so they have no way to fully exploit what’s in there.

            I’m not just a “Red Bull defender”, FYI. My gripes with regards to the current situation are not due to RBR not being on top, but to the simple fact that PU manufacturers having a firm grip on F1 is not my idea of a healthy F1. I do not like STR only getting 2015 Ferrari PU’s, for that matter. It’s not feasible to have 10 teams each creating their own PU/engine and that has never been a requirement in F1 to actually do well, until now, because the PU manufacturers have all the power.

            “You have a good budget and personnel? Well, no current-spec engines for you then. Enjoy second tier”.
            “You have a lesser budget? Well, you get current-spec engines. Also enjoy second tier”.
            Now go ahead and tell me that’s the F1 you want to see.

            1. Fuel, I can follow. Software not: PU’s are a black box to the customer teams and so they have no way to fully exploit what’s in there.

              That’s not entirely true, to the best of my knowledge.

              All teams use a standard ECU mandated by the FIA. They use whichever engine they have, and the engine manufacturer supplies standard software for the ECU which will make it work. The teams are not mandated to use that exact software, nor the standard mappings provided. There is no reason I can see that a team shouldn’t come up with their own software and/or mappings to increase performance.

              I could see, however, it “invalidating the warranty”* just as it would if I installed a custom ROM on my phone.

              As for fuel (and lubricants), every team is free to contract their own fuel supplier to develop something better for them.

              * Yes, I know there isn’t really a warranty on an F1 engine, but the manufacturer provides a lot of support for use of the engines under tightly defined circumstances. They would probably loose that help, just as they would if they exceeded the allowed use of higher engine mappings. If any of this is specifically banned in contracts (terms say you must use this software, not just we won’t help if you don’t), that’s what should be stopped to allow all teams to compete on a level playing field.

            2. Dr mouse – at last someone with a grasp of the basic ‘software’ drama.

              Can you let Kenneth and the others know because years of telling them these things on various sites seems not to get through…?

              Probably because Merc and others make good engines and RB?
              Well not so much and in being taught a little lesson in humility this year are still going on about it.

              They can get anyone they like as a fuel supplier and given it is only the deployment software that arrives ‘standard’ it’s how it works with your car and tyres and drivers and tracks that counts. In other words how you deploy the PU performance according to your racing variables – there is no secret ‘sauce’ the regulations do not allow it. Yet the RB can’t wait to say Merc and Ferrari are keeping it all themselves. Forgetting of course, that the RB won three times last year….

              By the way nearly all of F1 electronics are a standardised ECU including the display made under contract for the FIA by Maclaren)

            3. @drmouse, it is certainly the case that Force India and Lotus have both stated that they get the same fuel supplies as Mercedes – only Williams do not receive the same fuel, and that is because they are committed to using Petrobras due to their sponsorship deal.

          2. JerseyF1 how long have you followed f1? were you ever a Redbull fan? your views seem to contravene “Sporting” opinion and seem to be simply be against Redbull. Redbull have done more for f1 in the past 10 years then any other team, have introduced so much new talent to the sport, and have every right to “question” stupid regulations – Mercedes and Ferrari at the moment seem far less “sporting” and for the good of f1 then Redbull has been. those 2 manufacturers could spell the end of F1 in a few years when more fans get fed up with this farcical excuse of a “fair” sport.

        4. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best aerodynamics or chassis.

          And every year the PU manufacturers have the same opportunity. The fact that one does a better job than another is part of the sport.

          1. @geemac
            1. That would only be correct if PU manufacturers could start with a clean sheet every year. Which is clearly not the case.
            2. You’re talking besides the point. The comparison was “Mercedes not willing to sell their PU” with “RBR not willing to sell their chassis secrets”. And that comparison is invalid because RBR simply can’t get the Merc PU if Merc is not selling, but other teams have every chance every year to come up with a better chassis.

            1. I am yet to hear the FIA or any other authority prevent Redbull or any other team from developing their own engine.

              Instead of harping on about other team’s approach to racing, Redbull should at least spend some of the Millions they spend on aero and chassis development towards making their own engines and then share the same engines, software, petrol mixture and of course aero to their competitors.

            2. @mattds

              1) Erm, yes they can. By way of example, Honda are fundamentally redesigning their energy recovery system this year.
              2) And every year Red Bull have the chance to court the PU manufacturers in order to get them to supply them a PU. They nearly managed to get a Mercedes deal this season for heavens sake. If they stuck at it instead of throwing their toys out of the cots and crying foul they may have got a supply for 2017. Moreover, every year Red Bull have the ability to court a major motor manufacturer to enter the sport and offer to part fund the development of an F1 PU. But they don’t and no one will offer to do this with them because of Red Bull’s attitude that their chassis is the best in the field and all of their shortcomings are down to the PU…always. A potential PU manufacturer would be setting itself up for a heap of negative PR, so why should anyone bother?

            3. I have no idea how we’ve come to the point where we expect teams to develop their own PU’s to be competitive. No, that’s actually a lie, I do have an idea. We’re talking about RBR.

              That aside, starting development now, or even last year, is too late. We’ve seen that it’s easy to get it wrong, and it is hard to recover with the development token system.

            4. @geemac
              No, 32 tokens are not nearly enough to start on a clean slate. The entire PU is divised up into 66 tokens. 32 can be changed.

              And yes, they can try and obtain another PU each year. My gripe is that the PU manufacturers just decide based on the team’s competitivy to either a. don’t supply them (they’re good and we’re afraid of them), b. supply them with a year-old spec (they’re OK but we’re not THAT afraid of them), or c. supply them with a current spec (they won’t threaten us anyway). That is what I don’t like about current F1.

              and no one will offer to do this with them because of Red Bull’s attitude that their chassis is the best in the field and all of their shortcomings are down to the PU…always

              Now you’re simply conjuring up things. Or do you know for a fact that that was the reason why VW never entered?

            5. @mattds

              Are 32 tokens really more restrictive than the current aero regulations? Using about 8 tokens you can redesign practically the entire upper half of the engine.

              No I don’t know if for a fact, but riddle me this? Why would a motor manufacturer embroiled in a PR scandal sign up for another potential PR nightmare?

            6. @geemac

              Are 32 tokens really more restrictive than the current aero regulations?

              Quite simply: yes. You can redevelop the entire car year after year. Everything. You can not redevelop the entire PU year after year.

              Why would a motor manufacturer embroiled in a PR scandal sign up for another potential PR nightmare?

              Have you not paid attention these past weeks? Because Ferrari have quite clearly answered why they wouldn’t want to supply RBR.

            7. MattDS, with regards to the token scheme – it should be borne in mind that, asides from being able to use tokens to upgrade the performance of the engine, teams are also permitted to introduce upgrades on the grounds of reliability or cost reduction without having to use tokens.

              In the case of Ferrari, we know that they have taken that approach this year and did introduce updates to their engine that, because they fell under the grounds of reliability improvements, did not require additional tokens. Honda, too, also made additional modifications to their whole power unit that were classified as reliability updates and therefore could be made outside of the token regime, and I believe that Mercedes also introduced a few small updates that were classified as reliability fixes rather than design changes.

              Of course, there is something of a fine line between an upgrade that improves reliability or reduces costs and one that can also increase the performance of the power unit (with the manufacturer naturally proclaiming that it is an accidental side effect).

              As an aside, to a certain extent, if a team was in a situation where they were redesigning their power unit year after year, it would imply that there was something deeply wrong with the team. After all, few teams will redevelop their entire car year after year – Newey himself said that so many of his cars were essentially evolutions of their predecessor that he considered the RB9 to be an RB6C.

            8. What duty Merc have for RB? I mean, is it mandatory or is it Merc’s job to supply RB their special formula? It is their product, and they have every right to protect it from anyone, just as they have the right to sell it to anyone…

            9. @geemac

              I have no idea how we’ve come to the point where we expect teams to develop their own PU’s to be competitive.

              Indeed, that is the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a while … But as you say, anything coming from Red Bull will be shot down even if it makes sense, simply because it comes from Red Bull.
              Are people really saying that we need 10 teams developing 10 engines to have a level palying field?

              The problem is that there are no independent engine manufacturers anymore like in the Benetton days. That’s why the FIA has to write in the rules that every customer engine should be the same as the manufacturers engine, not only in a hardware, but also in software and access to the same fuel.

              And for those saying you can develop your own software … no you can’t. The source code is closed, which means these engines are black boxes for customer teams.

        5. –Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best aerodynamics or chassis. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

          I am yet to hear the FIA or any other authority prevent Redbull or any other team from developing their own engine.

          Instead of b***hing about other team’s approach to racing, Redbull should at least spend some of the Millions they spend on aero and chassis development towards making their own engines and then share the same engines, software, petrol mixture and of course aero to their competitors.

        6. ok @mattds Lets try this another way. Do you seriously think that Red Bull would have been perfectly fine with Renault giving ALL its customers the latest SW to enable the hot and cold blowing exhausts?

          I am pretty sure that they were no more inclined to do so than any current manufacturer is inclined to give all the latest updates to their customers now.

          Oh, and as for fuel – one of the reasons McLaren was lagging behind in 2014 was because they were the only Mercedes customer NOT using the same fuel from Petronas. As the fuels are developped in close cooperation between manufacturer and supplier, not running that same fuel poses a significant setback in terms of power too. A situation pretty comparable to Red Bull not getting offered latest spec by Ferrari and Mercedes, as they would be a direct competitor. Ron did the sensible thing and found himself a supplier of his own.
          Its simply not possible to fine tune one and the same complex engine for two significantly different cars at the same time. And Red Bull has shown they do expect their supplier to play to their own ideas to optimise their car (that is what a top team does).

          The best way to make sure that its not the manufacturers dictating the pace is to leave the rules as are and allow Honda and Renault to catch up. Then we can have a relatively level playing field again in a year or 2.

          1. Do you seriously think that Red Bull would have been perfectly fine with Renault giving ALL its customers the latest SW to enable the hot and cold blowing exhausts?

            Well, they didn’t have the power to stop Renault from doing so. And if they would have, I would have been the first to speak out against them having the power.

            It’s logical that those with the power try to use it to their advantage. That’s why I don’t like teams/manufacturers/… to be in a situation where they get a lot of power and the regulations actually help them to wield the power.

            The best way to make sure that its not the manufacturers dictating the pace is to leave the rules as are and allow Honda and Renault to catch up. Then we can have a relatively level playing field again in a year or 2.

            Actually, as long as the regulations leave room for manufacturers to distribute old-spec PU’s, you will by definition not have a level playing field.

            1. @mattds

              Actually, as long as the regulations leave room for manufacturers to distribute old-spec PU’s, you will by definition not have a level playing field.

              That rule only exists because of the mess Red Bull got itself into, it was going to be taken out of the regulations after it was put in to allow Manor to survive.

            2. Are you sure they didn’t @mattds? I think that at the time they were officially the preffered partner and “works” outfit for Renault. And Red Bull also put a lot of work into coming up with that software, so it makes sense that they have a say in what team can or cannot use it.

              Again, there are tokens, the time limits have been loosend up and the FIA have re-opened previously black boxed areas of design. Honda has a decent CIE but knows where it has to work on the hybrid part, Renault surely would be able to make significant steps forward too. If they do it the right way, they can make a similar step like Ferrari did last winter, with less restrictions than Ferrari had to do so.
              I really see no reason to think that Mercedes and Ferrari have it in their power to prevent that, nor do I see them using everything they can to do so.

        7. Agreed.

          However with the AWFUL engine regulations there is no incentive for any manufacturer to join F1 which means F1/FIA/FOM have created the current state of affairs and thus should be responsible for fixing it. While I disagree with Newey’s solution, he’s quite correct in his frustration which echos many of the long time fans opinions on the matter.

        8. @mattds

          Why is this being repeated over and over and over? It’s invalid and incomparable. Every team has every chance every year to come up with the best aerodynamics or chassis. It’s in their own hands each and every year and it’s not being restricted.

          Renault said that even with unlimited tokens, they wouldn’t be able to catch Mercedes, because they are simply running out of ideas. Which, given their deficit in pace to Mercedes, is downright embarrassing.

        9. since when did an engine manufacturer that goes racing his own team supplied the same specification engine to customer teams?.
          were was Newey when red bullies had an exclusive preferred supply agreement with Renault when Renault were supplying three other teams?.

      2. @mattds Drop it mate. If this was about Ferrari or Mercedes everyone would be willing to understand but just because it is Red Bull they won’t. You’re absolutely right but if you’re argueing with a fool, who really is the fool eh?

        1. oh, come on @xtwl the majority of people on here were making fun of or were even mocking Ferrari all those years when they were complaining how much F1 was about aero etc.

          1. 4/10/2015, 2016 regulations published by the FIA state that in 2016 customer engines must be same specification as works teams (article 23.5 of the sporting regulations pdf), these rules applies ONLY to engine hardware, NOT the software, fuel or lubricants.
            I do not know what Renault did in-between STR and RBR, what I know for sure is that both Mercedes and FERRARI had/was running tow different specification PU’S on the grid at some of the races, RBR, Mercedes and Honda even had at times tow different specifications PU’S on their own 2 cars running on the grid at times.

      3. I disagree entirely, it’s unhealthy for the sport when customer teams are at a significant disadvantage. I agree with you that Red Bull has no right to demand an engine, but if they do get an engine from another manufacturer, it should be the same.

        I can’t help but cringe at Horner, but Newey is almost always fair with what he says. I think the software is something that is part of the engine, to separate it is to misunderstand how vital it is.

      4. Its just a product of the current rule sets. If you look at McLaren they had the Mercedes PU and turned their back on it to go with Honda because they were never going to beat(or be allowed to beat) the factory team that spends all the money on the R&D. Mclaren realised this an took positive step to work with Honda, fair enough it didn’t pan out last season and they went backwards, but they have Honda sole focus in F1 and stand a good chance in the future.

        If Red Bull truly want to be master of their own domain then they need to bring an engine manufacture in that they’ll be the number 1 team for. Sure it will probably be difficult for a couple of seasons but with hindsight they could have done it over the last two seasons.

    2. Aero is there in the public eye the minute it goes on the car. Although an entire concept will be hard to copy, evolutionary development can easily be mimicked by a rival team. Engine concepts are much harder to do this with, but the details can still be tweaked. But software and fuel are invisible. The answer can only be picking the best technical partner, or building the things yourself.

      1. For years everyone but Newey was complaining how F1 had become too aero dominated @splittimes. And aero still is a significant part, but with the new rules there is almost always one or two who react better.

    3. Sigh… O.K. Red Bull. You can have exactly the same spec Power Unit as Renault.


      1. Mark in Florida
        5th January 2016, 11:55

        Ha ha ha, my thoughts exactly. I wish Red Bull would shut up already. They have the money and had the time in years past to start their own engine project. But as long as they were winning with Renault it didn’t matter, now it matters and they have been caught flat footed. Their continual whining about other team’s not helping them get back to the top of the sport is sickening. Make your own engine run your own petrol and pour in your own oil.

    4. I recall an interview last year where Lotus (who had by then used two suppliers) pointed out that the Mercedes contract Specified That the engines supplied to its customer teams were identical in all (not just some) respects. Renault did not contractually specify this.

      Further the regulations demand such parity albeit somewhat screwed up by Red Bull and co for next year… The additional mods for 016 used by Mercedes later in the season were available only due to the loophole.

      Who you contract with for fuel and oil is part of a free market! I recall RD at Macca moaning about different fuel sponsors affecting his performance although I could not work out how that was Mercedes fault?

      Just Newey trying to become the only single common denominator again…

      Stop moaning and get better – just saying….

      1. You expected Mobil to make a fuel that works as well as the optimum oem fuel developed over tens of thousands of hours of dyno testing, even though they only have preseason testing to discover that blend? Even if they trialled blends all year on track it wouldn’t be as good as a days benchtesting, which they cant do ofcourse. Merc own F1 for now. Would you have the same tune if RB Renault had a dominant engine over every othe team In 2014-15-16?

      2. Oh, you mean like ‘get better’, like just build a better engine… Reminds me of that one politician of the USA that said people should just stop being poor…

        1. Actually – build any engine or work with the one you have or grow up instead of throwing out your toys and screaming how it’s not fair might have been the better response but you of course somehow attempt to align RB self made issues with the poor and unwell?

          Err – I really hope your still enjoying the New Year and not serious?

    5. I doubt if Newey would want all the aero specs of the cars to be the same. How boring for him if he couldn’t be the one that made the difference to performance. (I thought he’d gone to look after boats.)
      If he wants all drivers in the same spec car, it should be across the board but that has never been the way in F1. It’s a competition of all types, not just wind tunnel and right foot speed.

      1. @ janet 54321…it’s your last sentence that gets it all wrong. it’s not a ‘competition’ any longer as the two major engine suppliers decide just who is competitive and who isn’t by virtue of what engine spec they supply. it’s called ‘result manipulation’. take red bull as a perfect example. ferrari, in the end, wouldn’t even supply them with a ’15 spec engine, let alone a ’16 model!!!!

        1. Plenty of competition, Merc and Ferrari should not supply anyone but themselves and the others can get together and build an engine.

        2. Two suppliers decide? Well, that a lot better than the one it often used to be. Renault used to rule the roost. Now they didnt. As did Ferrari, Merc and others. Christ, 2 years for success and so called fans, who clearly know zero of F1 history demand change. Its up to Renault and Honda to get up to speed. Demand they change and work harder, dont expect the leaders to give hand outs. Bleating on about those who did a good job is just bad sportsmanship.

    6. It’s good Red Bull is using their power to voice these things. People forget it;s not only about Red Bull but the same is being done to every single team down the field from Williams to Manor and Sauber in between.

      1. Then those teams can pool their budgets together and build their own engine, problem solved.

        1. What rubbish. Half the grid is struggling to survive. You suggest that every team builds their own engines, as if that wouldn’t bankrupt them all and leave F1 with only four teams, effectivelly destroying the very sport you (I assume) enjoy. I honestly find it hard to believe you can’t see how that is the complete opposite of “problem solved”.

          1. Problem solved in that all the little teams plus Red Bull POOL their budget into 1 shared engine. With all their money combined they have more than enough to equal the engine budget of Ferrari or Merc, Red Bull could do that themselves and sell the engine to the little teams for less than they currently have to pay.

            1. The smaller teams are never gonna build an engine. If Red Bull builds one and sells it they are gonna do the same thing that Ferrari are doing right now.

        2. Wow! I love the you make everything so simple in life! :D

          1. Much simple to demand someone else’s engine….

      2. Yes, I could care less about Red Bull having a good engine this year, but I’d love to see Williams have a fair shot at Mercedes…

    7. So it is episode 289 of the series “We don’t build engines so engines are stupid”.

      It is obviously another way to get the engines out of equation but it does not really solve the root issue. So we must supply our customers with petrol and software? Great, Manor and Force India can have that and the likes of Red Bull can go build their own power units because they will never get ours.

      Red Bull need a strong engine supplier that does not have its own team in F1. If the engine rules need to be changed to make that happen, then do it but everything else is just making fun of the sport.

    8. No sympathy for RB, a team which profited very nicely from having preferential treatment and specialized software in the blown diffuser era. This statement from Newey is self-serving only – he wants to eliminate the one area of competitive disadvantage. And who can blame him.

      But the real core of the problem, once again, is the current engine regs that require an engine package too complex and innovative for its time. The scale of the complexity has created an unusually wide range of performance levels from competing units and most importantly, a huge barrier to entry. You shouldn’t need to dictate who engine manufacturers supply, or what specs they should provide. Teams should have the ability to pick and choose the best deal from a reasonably wide range of options. And there should be several manufacturers that can produce a decent unit. Not just two out of four.

      1. The way I remember it, the rules were changed every year to stop Red Bulls domination. You should explain to me how that’s ‘preferential treatment’.

    9. The only solution I see((within the current rules), is to get and independent engine supplier. It doesn’t matter if they are a big car manufacturer or not (VW,Toyota,Ford etc or Cosworth, Ilmor etc) as long as they don’t have a works team of their own competing against customer teams!

      1. @fanatikosf1 That is a start, but is not enough – after all, Renault was an independent manufacturer supplying only Red Bull and its B-team, and we all know how that worked out. We also have Honda working solely for McLaren, and all they do is embarrass themselves. The engine rules would need to be changed to simplify the PUs and/or allow unlimited development for a few years. No matter how many independent suppliers there are, they will amount to nothing if the rules never allow them to catch up to Mercedes and Ferrari.

      2. We already have one, Honda, Last season we had two – Honda and Renault – but Redbull drove Renault into becoming a manufacturer team.

        Mercedes and Ferrari already supply well over half the grid between them, On that basis they have the right as far as I am concerned to supply who they want with what. The Token system (massively flawed in my opinion but that is another matter) is only supposed to run for a few more years and people seem to forget that the engines WILL be Homologated for the final time (as they were with the V8’s) and performance will no doubt be equalised (which should pretty much happen organically after 5 or so years and the laws of diminishing returns).

        The Engine manufacturers who do a better job should be able to reap the rewards of that for the limited period of time that they have available until final homologation.

    10. Hey Newey equal aero for all as well then. Every team has the chance to build an engine of their own there are no rules against it. Little teams should be thankful they get an engine if everyone wants equal then Merc or Ferrari should divide the entire cost of the engine equally between their customers and themselves then see how much that costs. Red Bull can build their own engine they have the money. They have the same if not larger budget than Ferrari or Merc but want to use nearly all the budget on aero where the others spread it between engine and chassis. I would like to see Red Bull forced out of F1 then Fiat can buy them on the cheap and re badge them Alfa Romeo.

      1. Every team has the chance to build an engine of their own there are no rules against it.

        This is really the most absurd idea coming up in pretty much every answer.

        Can anyone point me some time in F1 before 2014 where you had to build your own engine to be competitive? Let’s face it guys, the current situation is against the very nature of F1.

        I see engines as LEGO blocks, and you have to build the best car around those LEGO blocks. The way it is now, customer teams get malfunctioning blocks and everybody thinks it’s okay.

    11. I see why he feels so but let’s imagine Renault happen to be the one who have built a super PU in this turbo era and are enjoying the success. McLaren want to replace their Honda engine. Would Red Bull gladly let them have Renault engine, ensuring complete parity along with that (same spec, fuel/oil, software..)? I really really doubt it. The current situation sucks but it doesn’t change the fact that every single one is voicing for their own team’s advantage. Very few if any are truly for fair competition in the sport.
      Speaking of which, didn’t Red Bull refuse to share software with Lotus at the start of 2014 season, because it was developed by their own engineers?

      1. Completely fair point. It’s always when you’re on the loosing side that you start complaining and RBR is no different however; if you think from the governance point of view which is the FIA, it makes a lot more sense. No. 1, deciding your customers and no. 2, deciding the type of product to sell is a form of anticompetitive approach.

    12. It’s an interesting argument. So we are all clear that chassis and aero are differentiators between teams. Why are we not clear that so are engines (power units). I remember Willims, Redbull & MaClaren selling gearboxes to smaller teams, they were not senseless shift units even though they had them for their own works teams. No team in F1 would hand an advantage to a team they are competitive against and not should we expect them to. Wake up everyone. Redbull just paying for their naive approach to F1. Spend millions on chassis and aero then don’t build your own engine and be at the manufacturers mercy. This is why big Ron is going through the pain with Honda. He’s not stupid!

      1. It’s the team’s job to build cars; it’s the engine manufacturer’s job to build an engine. Stop confusing the two.

    13. Newey said the words that people from Williams, Force India, Sauber, STR want to say, but are not allowed to say because of contracts or relationships.

      4 PU manufacturers has “allowed” FIA to change rules to help Ferrari, Honda, Renault catch up since the end of 2014,now I hope PU manufacturers could “allow” FIA to help 7 customers in one way or another.

    14. TheF1Engineer (@)
      5th January 2016, 12:09

      Can’t believe this subject is still going on. It’s quite simple, the manufacturers should be supplying the same hardware, software and fuel as their works efforts across the board. It should be Porsche’s LMP1 mentality of “we just want a level playing field, it’s then up to us to do a better job.” Unfortunately, we all know that’s never going to be the case in F1. Too many ego’s involved.

      Therefore, we need an independent engine.

      To those who say, “Red Bull should offer their chassis secrets then,” or words to that effect, I understand the sentiment, but it’d be much better to more clearly define the aero rules as a trade-off for the engines. Have a set of concise aero rules, specific areas, volumes, permitted aero figures etc, so everybody knows what they’re aiming for, everyone has the same opportunity.

      And that’s what this whole thing really boils down to at the end of the day. OPPORTUNITY. The customer teams don’t have the same opportunity to build a hybrid engine as the works team do (and never will), likewise teams can’t spend the 200+ million on chassis/aero development that Red Bull do.

      It’s important for any game to start from “0-0.” Be it football, tennis, darts, whatever. The game always starts at 0-0. In F1, it doesn’t. It effectively starts at 3-0, and this just isn’t on. Starting from a level playing field = credibility.

      Rather than teams and fans (or more just the fanboys to be fair) pointing fingers at each other, the fingers should really be pointed at those responsible for authenticating regulations which have permitted these situations to exist in the first place, the FIA and FOM!!!

      1. Therefore, we need an independent engine.

        The problem with an independent engine is how would they be able to keep up with the manufacturer’s?

        Look at the Cosworth V8 as an example, At no point was that engine ever able to compete with the other manufacturer’s in terms of power, drivability or fuel consumption because they never had the budget to develop it at the same rate so you ended up with it been an engine nobody actually really wanted to run.

        If you end up with an independent engine that was worse than what the manufacturer’s had to offer then like with the Cosworth V8 who would want to run it?

        1. At least you have the choice to go for the low quality engine. If for some reason the 4 current engine manufacturers refuse to supply Red Bull (which almost happened this year), well Red Bull have no other choice than to leave the sport. That’s really messed up if you ask me.

          There has never been a period in F1 where manufacturers had this kind of power. I’m starting to wonder if it wasn’t better when Bernie controlled F1 instead of Mercedes and Ferrari.

    15. There are lots of “Red Bull should build their own power units” comments. That’s precisely what McLaren got Honda to do because they couldn’t get the same equipment as Mercedes and look where that’s got them.

      It is simply not possible for a new power unit supplier to come in and suddenly catch up on four years of hard work by the guys at Mercedes and Ferrari.

      Changes must be made, because as we saw last year with every pole and win taken by a manufacturer team, you cannot win unless you are driving for a manufacturer.

      1. @craig-o You don’t expect building new engines and winning straight away, just like you don’t expect a new team or driver entering F1 and winning straight away. Can it be done? Yes. Have it been done? Yes again. But it’s an exception not the norm. McLaren Honda might fall short last year and probably still not winning this year, but they also getting that experience they need to build winning team. Throwing tantrum on the other hand, won’t give anything Red Bull need to go back to winning ways.

        1. Same as Ferrari re building their aero department, it takes years, not won since 2008 they did not go into 2010 saying Red Bull should lend Newey to them for a fraction of his worth to help the chassis. The little teams are like people on benefits and should be grateful for what they get they cannot have top dollar. Red Bull are like people on benefits who are scamming the system as they can afford to pay their own way. Ferrari have not won for 7 years now, in 7 years Red Bull can build their own competitive engine and sell it to the little teams for 5 million a year if they are so fair.

          In Fact F1 became so caught up in aero for so long they forgot about the engine and the prestige of building a brilliant engine for yourself. Customer engines gave a leg up to many little teams in the past but ultimately you build your own or have an exclusive agreement. In the interest of purity the same rules should exist on chassis and engine, basically you have to make your own. This is not feasible so Ferrari, Merc and Renault are being kind enough to give the little teams something. Red Bull build your own or get out.

          1. Ignoring your problamatic beliefs about the benefits system, which was designed at it’s core, very sucessfully to reduce crime and begging, it can be argued that the little teams have been given a glass ceiling, like people on benefits who cannot afford to send their children to the best schools as to be awarded a scholorship, they have to be able to afford to be interview presentable – in a world where benefit claimants have to choose between proper nutrition and heating, a suit is out of the question – and in a world where little teams cannot win, we are not watching a sport anymore, because at it’s core, a sport should be fair.

            And it could equally be argued that Red Bull is less like a benefit claimant scamming the system and more like a political activist, campaigning for change against a corrupt system.

            1. William Jones, your analogy is rather poor given that Red Bull is not really “campaigning for change against a corrupt system”.

              This is the same team that voted through and actively approved of the current political system that stripped the smaller teams of any political leverage via the creating of the Strategy Group (where Red Bull has a guaranteed seat), as well as arranging for the funding model of the sport to be skewed in its direction (enhanced payment rights and the offer of a non-executive position on the board of FOM).

              They are part and parcel of the “corrupt system” that you say they are fighting against and have profited (in all senses of the word) from that system in the past – until their partnership with Renault broke down this year, Red Bull were officially designated as Renault’s “manufacturer” entry and derived multiple benefits and privileges as a result.

              Red Bull does not care about the little teams – they openly championed their decision to vote against measures that were intended to help the smaller teams in the past, and at times have spoken in favour of getting rid of those smaller teams altogether. Even in the same article where he attacks Mercedes and Ferrari, Newey has the gall to claim that the current voting system – one which actively excludes four teams – as “democratic”, when it is clearly only “democratic” for a team, such as Red Bull, which has guaranteed voting rights.

              Furthermore, Newey doesn’t actually speak in favour of the smaller teams – when he talks about customer teams, the language he has used now and in the past focusses just on Red Bull and Toro Rosso, with no active consideration of independent teams like Williams, Sauber or Force India. Marko, similarly, has spoken in a similarly exclusionary manner, making clear that he is completely unsympathetic towards the smaller teams and is solely interested in turning the regulations around so Red Bull can dominate in the way that Mercedes do now.

              No, what Red Bull actively resents, quite simply, is the fact that their political leverage has been eroded and that of their rivals has been enhanced, so now they cannot profit from it in the way that they used to.

            2. @william jones….very good analysis. well said.

    16. It’s odd isn’t it? Red Bull staff are pretending this is a very serious issue within the rules. Now that they’re no longer Renault’s works team. After going out of their way to rebrand their engines for 2016.

      I wonder if Newey felt concern for Caterham whether or not they got the same Renault engines in 2014. Or if Ligier got the same Renault engines as Williams back in 1994? Much less if the rules were set up that way.

      Red Bull and their staff are starting to rival Ferrari in the late days of Todt/Brawn in terms of ‘we are upset at these rules’ once they’re not winning. No disrespect for either team, but it’s a poor show.

      1. @npf1

        ‘we are upset at these rules’

        They are right to be upset, given there’s no level playing field anymore. This isn’t like aero development where everybody has the same rules and the same opportunities. Customer teams are at the mercy of engine manufacturers who may or may not sell them their most recent power-unit.

        1. @paeschli

          They are right to be upset, given there’s no level playing field anymore.

          When was there? Perhaps at the start of a new engine rule any manufacturer could be limited to one spec, but at that, they could instruct customer teams to use it differently. Teams themselves could use different power units before the rules clamped down on engine development. Teams could ask for older engines in order to save costs.

          F1 has never ensured teams that they were getting ‘equal’ parts from their suppliers, apart from tyres in the Bridgestone and Pirreli eras. Even 10 years ago, the Bridgestones on the Ferraris were vastly different than the ones on the Midlands. The Michelins on the Renaults were not the same as on the Hondas. Development was open, but only to top clients. Now, this remains in engine, lubricant, fuel and part development.

          There has never been a level playing field for engine customers, or customers of any parts. The only team that ever complained like this was McLaren in 1993, stating they didn’t get the same engines as Benetton. Which was obvious, since McLaren signed with Ford late and Benetton had long been the works team. In the late 90s, many smaller teams were trying to get exclusive deals with manufacturers as to not be relegated 2nd hand engines from others.

          Again, this is Red Bull making this a talking point, not Force India, not Sauber. Theoretically, Red Bull is a lot better prepared and able to reel in a new engine deal than any midfield team, even in the 90s. Yet, they decide to kick and scream around and now have to deal with the consequences.

          Should engine suppliers be willing to supply their customers with the best engines? Yes. But much like getting the best rubber, it is not always possible in F1. Red Bull need to stop pretending to be victims of ‘evil manufacturers’.

    17. Newey wants to have his cake and eat it too.

    18. +1 to Newey. Valid point if you think rationally.

    19. Red Bull has only ever used Renault engines; how do they know what Mercedes and Ferrari stipulate in their engine supply contracts?

      1. Red Bull raced with Ferrari engines in 2006 and would have knowledge of Toro Rosso’s deals with Ferrari from 2006-2013.

        1. Darn… I keep forgetting about that…

          Still, that doesn’t explain why they think they know so much about how Mercedes does business; after all, they failed to take negotiations beyond ‘can we have your engines pretty please with sugar on top?’ earlier this year.

      2. Exactly – particularly as Lotus confirmed on television last year that their Mercedes contract stipulated that the PU is the same as the manufacturer team in all aspects (note all!) and if other teams have different sponsorship fuel suppliers and the like, how the hell is that Mercedes, Ferrari or Hondas fault?

        Further the deployment software is there for teams to use/vary/whatever according to their strengths weaknesses and racing variables. In other words I am really struggling to understand how people expect a team that spends 10% of a top team such as RB and has two ‘OK’ drivers is entitled to share wins across the board like its the joke Pirelli World championship again and the world has gone nuts with everyone deserving wins and trophys.

        Bottom line – RB had four years of absolute success with Renault. Two of them due to unique software they and only they could exploit. In return, after a difficult season of being only second best and not winning all the races as normal, they absolutely crapped on the engine supplier and F1 as a whole. The lesson in humility is richly deserved and it is perhaps because of the way they behaved to Renault that other teams are less than willing to assist the second richest team until they start to understand it is actually a ‘team’ effort and not just about RB. Until then, they deserve everything they get and AN’s comments suggest they have a long way to go yet…

        So what better than to pretty much destroy the sport with a ridiculous equivalency engine?

        They could of course find a sympathetic platform about the inequal payment structure? But no – it’s just not fair… To them!

        1. Funny

          Everyone knows Williams, Lotus, Force India and Sauber were using half-year-old engines in the second half of 2015.

          1. Everyone knows Williams, Lotus, Force India and Sauber were using half-year-old engines in the second half of 2015.

            From Monza yes & only because Mercedes shifted to a development/prototype engine which will be available to all its teams for the start of this season.

            Mercedes said at the time that they were taking a risk introducing the Monza engine upgrade because it was un-tested & remember that Nico Rosberg ended up having some reliability problems with that engine & ended up reverting to the old spec.

            1. reliability problems with that engine

              Reliability problems which were completely unreletaed to the ‘new-spec’ part of the engine.

        2. Two of them due to unique software they and only they could exploit.

          You do realise that without their specific arrangement of exhaust and diffuser, that ‘unique software’ was useless?

        3. particularly as Lotus confirmed on television last year that their Mercedes contract stipulated that the PU is the same as the manufacturer team in all aspects (note all!)

          Do you have a clip to back this up?

          1. I don’t know if the interview was recorded live, but there are reports with direct quotes from Matthew Carter, Lotus’s CEO:
            “Being in the unique situation that we’ve had a contract with both Renault and a contract with Mercedes, I can confirm that we, in the Mercedes contract, it is stipulated that we have complete parity. In the Mercedes contract.”

            1. Further down though, there’s this:

              “However, one also has to accept that they are a works team and there are going to be development programmes that come in that will automatically go there first and then trickle down to all the customer teams.

              “So it would be unrealistic to expect it to be the same all the time. But I think primarily where they can, they’re supplying us the same equipment and same software.”

              Which heavily implies that, while they in theory get the same equipment, in practice, they don’t.

    20. Everything I’ve read above explains why F1 is in the trouble it is.

      Innovation is great but close racing (in my view) is better. I think generally on a sliding scale they are mutually exclusive.

      For innovation read cost. For close racing read low down-force, spec formula or components.

      Seemingly there isn’t enough money in F1 to support a technically innovative series that also provides close competitive racing.

      Unfortunately there are two championships, the drivers and the constructors. Most people focus on the drivers championship but how can any driver who wins the drivers championship in a far superior car legitimately call themselves World Champion?

      We have to do away with the constructors championship and focus on finding ways for teams with less money to be competitive. I personally don’t care if we lose Ferrari, Mercedes or any other team so long as I can see the bravest and best drivers in the world go wheel to wheel for the championship.

      F1 has to bite the bullet and decide what it wants. If a way can be found to be competitive more cheaply then the petty fighting between teams like Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes will simply go away.

      1. very well said, my COTD!

      2. I would rather lose the little teams and I prefer the Constructors title. I watch F1 because I like Ferrari the drivers grow old and leave for me they are just bits of meat with hair that control the cars. The little teams lower the gene pool in F1 they should put up or shut up which they are doing. The issue here is a very big team is pretending to be in the same boat as the little teams. It is like a millionaire busking on the street.

        1. Without the little teams, there’d be very little chance for new talent to come through. OK, with today’s pay drivers there’s not much chance anyway, but without, to use a recent-ish example, Minardi, Alonso may have never got his break. And not forgetting that Senna started with the comparatively small Toleman team before moving to Lotus, then to McLaren where he won three world titles.

          1. Yes you are right. An over reaction on my part replying to one extreme with my own extreme. Small teams are very important. They are not the ones complaining it is a huge team that is because they seem to want to bypass years of hard work to get back to the top which is annoying. They had a partner they could have done this with but they still have the chance to use some of their huge budget to build their own engine a luxury not afforded to the smaller teams.

            1. markp I don’t think my initial suggestion was that extreme.. well perhaps a little, but something radical is needed.

              Imagine a world where a small team could take on Ferrari and teams like Red Bull and Mercedes couldn’t just buy the championship.

              I think the drivers championship should be won by the best driver and not the one with the best car.

              I think constructors championship shouldn’t be decided by the team with the most money… I think that’s a problem that needs some thought.

            2. The only way to completely have two meaningful championships is to completely divorce the drivers from the teams. Have FOM employ the drivers directly, and have that position be based solely on talent. Have each driver rotate through each car randomly, so in a season, they drive each car once – meaning that they will be at each team twice in a season. There will still be an element of luck – getting a McLaren at certain tracks may allow for points but at others not, but in general, the top drivers will perform better, and squeeze points from uncompetitive cars, giving them the edge, while mediocre drivers may not be able to bring a top car in first.

            3. Sean Newman the drivers are part of a team F1 is a team sport not an individual sport. The driver is part of the overall package. This has always been. I appreciate people are all having their say on how to improve things but the balance of driver and car is something that should be left alone as it is the essence of F1. F1 is not black and white there are numerous variables and that is a great thing. As for money buying championships, no doubt money helps but it is not everything look at Toyota when they had the largest budget in F1 or BMW. Ferrari have a huge budget and have not won a title since 2008. To eliminate money as an influence you might as well solve world hunger and peace in the middle east as all sports have this look at football the richest teams win the most.

            4. Hi markp,
              I guess we disagree on this but I respect your position.
              My frustration lies in that the racing at the moment just isn’t very close. To only have 2 or 3 winners every season is boring. As far as money having an influence, you are right, it is difficult to legislate against, but not impossible. We already have loads of rules to keep costs down. I think we need some more. Here’s my thinking, imagine a car with almost no aero, a more mechanical grip than currently but LOADS and LOADS more power so the lap times are about the same as now. What would happen is money spent on aero and engine would have less effect. Lap time difference between a car with poorer aero and power as compared with better aero and power would be less, simply because the rage would be less. This would mean closer racing between the wealthier teams and the poorer ones.
              This is my personal vision anyway. I know you might not agree but hey its good to discuss these things. Happy F1 watching for the new year!

            5. Close racing is what everyone wants but by meddling with the rules this never gets achieved. I always feel the closest racing is when there is stability within the rules. Sometimes you just have to let things run their course, some years will be good others not so good but by changing rules to make the racing so close leads to artificial solutions. Most like warm sunny weather but we do not try and forcibly change this. I would like to see a good 5 years with the rules not changing as I feel the racing will get closer, I would also like to see testing come back unlimited as all teams get more from this even the small teams, currently testing is done with very complex computer programmes that even a team like Ferrari have not got right so what chance small teams. Yes testing costs more but it allows for faster gains and smaller teams get better information from it. The gap between small teams and large teams in development may well be accentuated by having to use computer software. With testing I feel Ferrari would be closer to Merc, Honda and Renault would sort the engines out faster and teams like Sauber would be able to bring more worth while developments to races faster. In the end this will bring closer racing.

    21. Mateschitz mouthpiece #3, stop complaining and build your own engine if you want to win! It is simple. F1 is all about the money.

    22. Boring, boring, boring.

      Same recycled story about the same people moaning about the same things, with the same people arguing about it on this website.

      Dull, dull, dull…

      If I was a manufacturer of PUs, I would find every reason to avoid selling my goods to Red Bull, purely because of their attitude towards their ‘partner’ last year.

      Red Bull are quick to complain now. They were pretty quiet when they were winning. It’s like reasoning with an upset child.

      1. It’s like reasoning with an upset child.

        Sometimes, the child is right to be upset. I hope people here will realise that.

        It’s not because Red Bull have been hypocrites in the past that they aren’t making sense right now.

    23. What everyone is seeming to forget and Ferrari pointed this out is that budgets are not unlimited…for example lets look at Ferrari and Red bull… red bull spends an enormous amount on aero which Ferrari cannot match since they are spending tens of millions developing an engine… ferrari then hands over tens of million dollars of research to Red bull for 20 million a year and redbull demolishes Ferrari on track because with Ferraris engine.. reason being? Ferrari cannot afford to match redbulls deep pockets in aero development.

      1. It’s a flawed logic. After the engine freeze (in 2009 I believe?), every team could allow the same amount of resources to aero development, yet it was Red Bull who came out on top.

    24. Can anyone picture an alternate universe, where Red Bull is an engine manufacturer and supplier AND its team members defend their customers’ rights to get exactly the same engine, petrol and software specifications? Instead of defending their own right to develop all peripheral elements as they please, without having to share them with their customers, who didn’t have to make any effort?

      Frankly, I can’t. I can’t not imagine that Newey’s or any other RB official’s statements would be turned upside down if the situation where the other way around.
      This makes the question whether or not he has a point in some aspects (he does) rather irrelevant. With that in mind, he’s just as likely to be right every once in a while as is a broken clock.

      1. @nase The rules should not be changed because Red Bull demands so, the rules should be changed because the current ones favor manufacturer teams.

        In this alternate universe where Red Bull would refuse to give the same engine to customer teams, it would still be right to ask that all teams have access to the same engines.

        The rules should provide a level playing field, no matter who is involved and no matter who the bad guys or the hypocrites are.

    25. This is why I still respect McLaren and Ron. They don’t spent time moaning about how other team advantage is an injustice. F1 is always about pushing all the boundaries of technologies, and currently software and fuel blends just becoming more prominent and it’s something that customer team will hard to get. McLaren realizes this before Red Bull does and what they do is making partnership with Honda so they can become factory works again. Whether it works or not, its the proof that they’re better competitor than Red Bulls.

      1. Now this is a COTD

      2. i am pretty sure i heard both ron and honda complain about the engine rules, that they make it impossible to catch up. and the lack of testing.

        1. Yes, but Red Bull in this instance is complaining (presumably) about a Renault works team getting more toys than RB, not about how difficult it is for PU manufacturers to catch each other up.

          @sonicslv – I totally agree. McLaren saw this coming and did something about it. Red Bull tried to tap up another engine supplier and failed. The perfect world that Red Bull is asking for can’t exist.

      3. @sonics…and do you expect maclaren to react in exactly the same way if in year two they have actually gone backwards as renault actually did?

        1. Yes because it’s not the first time they have failed partnership. 1994 McLaren-Peugeot is another horrendous year but they switched to Mercedes without slandering neither the Peugeot or the rules.

      4. @sonicslv They both complain, the differnce is when Red Bull does the entire site comes alive and is happy to slander the team but when McLaren does half the commenters go silent because they need the McLaren example to show how bad Red Bull is doing…

        1. That might have something to do with the fact that McLaren use more neutral language, and also state that they are working with Honda to resolve the problems.

          1. @raceprouk I have always wondered though whether (yes they don’t say it) people really wonder Red Bull did nothing to help Renault? If anything I see it the other way around.

        2. @xtwl Because McLaren statement doesn’t sounds like whining and it’s rare nowadays to hear news from a team that actually doing something outside politics. Also McLaren still got criticized heavily (and fairly so) for Button and Magnussen treatment.

          1. @sonicslv Whether you see it as whining or stating actual problems is in the eye of the beholder I guess…

            1. @xtwl I’m not the only one that see it as whining. That being said, if I don’t get good grades for an exam, then it’s true I have a problem, but doesn’t mean I won’t be ridiculed if I said the top grade student should share his notebook to me because I can’t write proper notes that makes my study much easier.

            2. @sonicslv Irrelevant example as that isn’t about a million euro enterprise, and nobody forced you to not study for the test. If you had paid attention in class and took notes you would have scored better, you had all chances that every single student in your class had to score good.

              Customer teams on the other hand (if you want to stay in class) have been thought 80% of the stuff they need to know for the test whereas the factory teams know the 100%. When testday comes though they are expected to perform the same exact thing. Which in competition is inherently anti-competitive.

            3. @xtwl That’s where you wrong. Customer team like McLaren showed how to get the 100% material for the test, and before the meltdown RBR also have access to 100% material to the test. What happened is after Red Bull failed to become top scorer again, they starts blaming the teacher, notebook, tools or whatever they can blame on and as a result missed some materials they should pay attention instead, hence why they now have only 80% material.

              No customer team is ever denied access to try to get the 100% material. Years ago Williams become Renault works team, McLaren has Mercedes, Sauber has BMW, and of course Red Bull has Renault. Even in 2014 until now no one ever block McLaren from courting Honda partnership, and in a sense Lotus with Renault. Why Red Bull don’t have factory backing? It’s their own fault but they will still happily tells anyone who want to listen it’s somebody else’s fault.

            4. @sonicslv

              But how are Red Bull supposed to get 100% on the test if they are given bad pens?

              Because that’s the thing: Mercedes and Ferrari keep the best pens for themselves and only sell lower tier pens to customer teams, making it impossible for them to score 100% no matter how hard they study.

            5. @paeschli You missing the point. Why Red Bull need to depend on Mercedes or Ferrari? Why they don’t develop healthy relationship with Renault, or maybe try getting BMW, Toyota, Porsche, Audi, Ford or every other engine manufacturer out there other than Mercedes and Ferrari? This is why people say Red Bull only whining because they always blamed everything else but themselves. And if you gonna say getting other than Mercedes of Ferrari won’t make them win because look at McLaren-Honda, what makes them entitled to win every year?

              F1 is full of ups and downs. When you in the bottom you can throw tantrums, asking everyone to give your silver platter back and ultimately stay at the bottom while looking utterly ridiculous. Or, doing something for the foundation of your future success. Red Bull is doing the former, McLaren is doing the latter.

    26. I’m no fan of Red Bull’s whinging, but… I do feel customer teams should receive the same engine. Exactly the same engine.

      On a related note, all this software crap… does anyone else miss the days where you put your foot on the accelerator and the car went forward, put your foot on the brake and it stopped? I’m not a techie so I have no idea if this is feasible, but I’d love to see the drivers restricted to no more engine setting/power options than the owner of a fancy road car.

      1. They absolutely do!

        It’s in the regulations!

        The only variation is to keep Manor racing and because of the daft loophole.

        Mercedes contract according to the Lotus principle actually stipulated it was the same.

        Further nearly all of the software is on a standard ECU made by Maclaren for the FIA and has been for years and years! Even the dash is standardised as part of said ECU!

        Only the deployment software can be altered. According to variables unique to your race, car, drivers, tracks the lot.

        If you put different fuel in you car – it does the same thing. Each and every time.

        This is technology that is so old it’s ridiculous yet everyone seems to think it’s some witchcraft thought up by those nasty engine manufacturers to screw the smaller teams or RB.

        The ONLY thing screwing them is Bernie and CVC!

        1. You keep using this Lotus contract as an example; you do know the very person who you’re referencing also said, in the same interview, that they don’t always have the latest updates?

    27. Ask yourself this. Do you want a spec series in egnines? Yes or no.

      F1 is a spec series in tires, as there is only one supplier. And although a tire is an important part of car I get why this was done because nobody (of the fans) really cares for tires. However the chassis, body and the engine are what really makes a car a car. Right and as we want technical innovation in those things and teams being in comeptition over those things each team should be responsible for them itself. However they do this, get it done themesleves or buy it from someone else. This is what defines F1.

      So if you follow Newey on this you are basically (if you are consistent and see where his argument ultimately is leading to) for a one engine supplier spec series.

      The problem are those kinds of PU, and so this leaves us with only these options:
      – Have those expensive PUs and keep the spirit of F1, then be content that Merc and Ferrari dictate what happens (hope for Honda/Renault to get in the mix)
      – Have those expensive PUs and basically enforce a single engine supplier series (like tires), and kill the spirit of F1.
      – Kill those expensive PUs, keep the spirit of F1, and have lots of teams get a chance for the championship

      I am for #3

      1. Sorry but n the whole history of F1, your number 3 has never once been a prospect. Not once.

        1. I am not sure what you are exactly objecting about #3. Before those PU’s you didn’t need to be an engine manufacturer to at least have a chance for the championship, while at the same time it was not necessary to force any manufacturer to give away the same spec engine.

          1. @skylien

            Before those PU’s you didn’t need to be an engine manufacturer to at least have a chance for the championship

            Maybe not a manufacturer team but when was the last time a team won a championship without either been a manufacturer’s factory team or at least having heavy manufacturer backing?

            Red Bull had heavy backing from Renault & after 2010 became the factory Renault team who benefited from a lot of software tricks that Renault were developing which some of the other Renault teams didn’t immediately have access to (All the off throttle exhaust blowing for example).
            When McLaren had there period of success with Mercedes they were getting a lot of backing from Mercedes who at one point actually invested in the team. It was the same when Williams were running Honda/Renault engines in the 80s/90s & when McLaren had Honda engines from 88-92 & the Tag-Porsche’s before that.

            The way F1 is now isn’t really any different to how its been for a good 90% of its history. The teams with manufacturer backing (And indeed the full manufacturer teams) have always had the upper hand & team running as a customer or with an independent engine have traditionally struggled to compete against them.

            1. @gt-racer

              Well, I didn’t say private teams wouldn’t or weren’t at a disatvantage, but they were not generally out of any chance at all, like today. You said it yourself, RB is a prime example, they could have won in 2010 alhough they weren’t even fully backed by Renault, it would not be possible today with the 2010 version of partnership.

              Don’t missunderstand me. Private teams who don’t make their own engine will be at a disatvantage (This is the price to pay for having F1 which is about technical development which is extremely expensive, no matter how cheap engines are), but with these kind of engines today it is completely impossible to overcome. Only manufactureres have a theoretical chance, ande even of those, currently it is still only 1 (after two years already of those regulations!) who really is able to challange for the championship. Noone knows if even Ferrari really is competitive next year.

            2. @gt-racer

              “You said it yourself, RB is a prime example, they could have won in 2010 alhough they weren’t even fully backed by Renault”

              I actually meant 2009, of course they won in 2010. However in 2010 it was still the same relationship as in 2009, right?

            3. @skylien, the relationship between Renault and Red Bull changed at the end of 2009, when Renault upgraded Red Bull from customer status to placing them on a joint level platform as their former works team.

              Whilst they were not formally appointed as Renault’s factory team until 2011, their relationship with Renault in 2010 was closer to that of a factory team than that of a customer team.

      2. @skylien

        So if you follow Newey on this you are basically (if you are consistent and see where his argument ultimately is leading to) for a one engine supplier spec series.

        As far as I understand it, Newey asks for each engine supplier to offer only one ‘model’ of engine. He isn’t asking for a single supplier: he asks for 4 different engine suppliers but each engine supplier can only make one model.

        I don’t think there’s something wrong with that.

        1. @paeschli

          Sorry for late reply. Yes of course he only asks of this now, but I am just saying where it will finally lead to.

          Start with Neweys Proposal:
          “So the first thing you can do is to change the regulations so that customer teams have the same software and the same fuel, if they wish to, as the works team.”

          This means a customer of a manufacturer must have the full Performance of the engine the manufacturer has itself.
          -> From this it follows that no manufacturer will supply a customer that could compete with them, and private Teams like RBR will get no engine at all.
          -> Further it follows that you would need to take away the possibly of the manufacturers to say no. So lets say the FIA buys engines for a fixed price from the manufacturers and sells them to the Teams whoever wants them to make that happen.
          -> From this it follows that everyone would just take the best engine package (Mercedes today).
          -> From this if follows that you effectively have created a single manufacturer spec series, since it also doesn’t pay for other manufacturers to outdevelop the top spec engine anymore since they can just take the best one from them..

          And it all starts with forcing manufacturers to just deliver total same spec engines as they are using. Do you know what I mean?

    28. ColdFly F1 (@)
      5th January 2016, 15:03

      Whilst it may appear that Newey is moaning (again), he actualy has a very valid point:
      – A PU manufacturer can ‘manipulate’ which team gets how much ‘power’ by providing different software;
      – it is extremely inefficient to ask each team to develop their own software;
      – the FIA rule allowing only 1 specification PU (even though dropped in ’14 & ’15) is undermined by allowing different software (and fuels/lubricants).

      But it is not that simple either:
      – petrol companies tie up with single teams (not with PU manufacturers), and often want those team to run their brand fuels/lubricants;
      – different fuels require different software settings;
      – different cars/chassis prefer different engine modes to optimise overall lap-times (think about the blown diffuser engine setting RBR/Renault used so well).

      Therefore, I would prefer/suggest:
      – no fixed software/fuels (no change);
      – each team can pick its own fuel partner (no change);
      – PU manufacturers adjust the standard PU software together with each team (no real change);
      – all software is Open Source (new!), and therefore PU suppliers cannot get away with playing dodgy games giving preference to one team over another (this of course works both ways, thus RBR software tweaks will be shared with the other PU customers).

      1. @coldfly
        Extremely unlikely to happen but that’s a brilliant idea.

        Now that the software is open source, there’s a level playing field for each engine coming from the same manufacturer. It’s up to the teams to develop the best fuel and the best software.

    29. People are getting upset for no reason.

      If you think from Red Bulls viewpoint: yes it is in their interest.
      If you think from Ferrari’s viewpoint: no they shouldn’t have to supply anything they don’t want to.

      But what Newey is suggesting, and rightly so, is for the FIA and FOM to take control of the situation, and do whatever is best for Formula 1, and not single teams or manufacturers. It’s reasonable to say it would be good for F1 if the grid is more competitive; smaller performance gaps. If that can be done by forcing equal fuel and software, than that’s what should be done!

      1. It’s reasonable to say it would be good for F1 if the grid is more competitive; smaller performance gaps.


        If that can be done by forcing equal fuel and software, than that’s what should be done!

        No. There are dozens of different ways by which the grid can be made more competitive. Ballasting winning cars, for example, or water sprinklers on the tracks. It does not follow that therefore they should be done.

        1. You are actually in favor of those artificial tricks? Not really following your last sentence..

          I think it’s perfectly reasonable to take the power away from manufacturers, who beside Honda also are competitors themselves. They should not be able to decide who is competitive and who not.

          1. There’s a problem at present with a lack of competitiveness in F1. But that’s more attributable to the FIA rule makers than it is to the engine manufacturers. It’s the FIA which is deciding who is competitive and who is not, and which is essentially handing three consecutive WDC’s and WCC’s to Mercedes.

            We’ll get closer, more competitive racing if and when the rules restricting engine development are lifted.

            There’s never been a time in F1 when customer teams have been able to consistently beat the manufacturer teams.

          2. @me4me, I think you have misunderstood that comment – what he is saying is that you could impose a variety of means to level the playing field, ranging from your suggestion of forcing standard software packages through to means like success ballast. However, his suggestion is that, just because you could close up the performance gaps through measures such as standardised software packages, it is not what he sees as the best way to achieve that parity – to him, it is as artificial a means as using success ballast.

    30. If the teams want the exact same engine, fuel and lubricants as the engine supplier, then I assume the fuels and lubricant sponsors that get left out will stop funding the teams they previously supported. This support is in part financial to the tune of 200 million/year.

      One of those suppliers is Total who supply and support RBR.

      1. nope @w-k. Enstone already used Petronas fuel despite having Pastor’s sponsor on the car. STR used Total despite having Cepsa on their cars, and despite having Petrobras on the cars Williams use Petronas fuels too. The fuel is already so important a part that a team would be crazy not to use the one that their engine manufacturer fine tunes with the preferred supplier.

        1. @bascb, Williams did use Petronas’s products in 2014, but the original public announcement stated that, from 2015 onwards, they would use Petrobras’s products instead.

    31. I am so biased… When Horner, and I like the guy, opens his mouth, I tend to hear whining. When Newey says same thing.. Oh my pearls of wisdom at rate of two per paragraph with 3 degree rake.

      But seriusly he is right. Fuel, engine, software behind it, are now major performance diferentiators. To a tune of 2-3 seconds a lap in case of McHonda for example.

      Now 0.1 second advantage makes for a close battle, 1 second advantage is a snooze fest and falling ratings. If Mercedes advantage over Costomers comes from engine… Then by default 6 cars are unable to compete for lead.

      But is that really the case? Lotus, SFI, Williams all scored podiums last year. How much engine disparity is there for real? Howcome Williams won most Speedtraps of the year?

      Maybe disparity comes in breaking stability, traction, but how much of that is chassis?

    32. Regarding the “Homologation” of engine software as well as the hardware, Ron Dennis said there has to be a complete integration of suspension and brakes and gearbox and hybrid system besides the engine itself. So the only way to homologate the software as well as the hardware would be for all those using that engine and software having a nearly identical car. Even the steering wheel would have to be the same on all the cars. Only the visual appearance of the car would be different, underneath they would be all the same.
      So if a customer team wanted some special feature, e.g. they wanted to use a different method of suspension, then all the teams using that engine (and hence, the same software) would have to use that method of suspension too. Or say a driver wanted to have an accelerator pedal that uses a software damper instead of the mechanical one that the Mercedes drivers use, then all the cars using that engine would have to their mechanical dampers removed and have the software upgraded to include the software damping “app”.
      If this is what Newey wants, then he simply needs to get Red Bull to put it into the F1 Strategy Group as a proposal. I am quite sure there would be a lot of interest at this proposal. Obviously some teams would be in a position to “sell” their expertise to engine manufacturers, but it would also mean the staff involved in that expertise in other teams would be “down the road”.

    33. This constant complaining by RBR is annoying. As the engine manufacturers all came up with similar solutions, that being a highly integrated extremely complex power unit, it stands to reason that when the rules were proposed, had those involved, yes that means RBR, taken some time to think about where that would lead they would have seen this coming. So they and any one else that was involved in the technical working group have no one to blame but themselves. Rather than complaining and wringing their hands, they should be coming up with a way to transition from these rules to something that will work better for the teams while not requiring the engine manufacturers to throw away their investment.

    34. Build your own damned engine if you don’t like what you’re getting. Or agree with your supplier that you’ll pay to get the exact data the works team has. Good lord but if RedBull F1 doesn’t come across as the most entitled group ever.

      1. Well, they kind of are. A base Renault with their own changes.

        1. @selbbin
          No they are not. There is only one homologated Renault engine, only the branding differs. The rules forbid a manufacturer to homologate different engines.

    35. Many posters here saying that Ferrari and Merc are not supplying Red Bull because they fear Red Bull will beat them by building a better chassis that will out-perform any special fuels or software that they use on their cars. I think the reason is much simpler. Ferrari and Merc probably don’t want to supply Red Bull because Red Bull just does all its talking through the media, throws its toys out of the pram and do not behave like a mature business partner should.

      1. Yeah, thank heavens for long lasting teams like Williams who weather the storm and are now coming back. McLaren will be up to scratch in a year or two.

    36. Let’s suppose that Renault and not Mercedes aced the new engine regulations, and that Red Bull/Renault and not Mercedes had won 32 of the last 38 GP’s. Would Newey still be calling for engine equalization and for Renault to provide its best-in-class PU to anyone who wanted it? I doubt it very much.

      Manufacturers and (manufacturer backed teams like Red Bull/Renault and McLaren/Mercedes or McLaren/Honda) have always dominated F1. That has not changed.

      What has changed are the restrictions on engine development. The current rules need to changed to allow ongoing R&D on the engines. Everyone already knows that, if Mercedes start the 2016 season on top, they’ll finish it on top. That is a new and unwelcome development in F1. It used to be that even if one team started the season with a better engine, another team might finish it with a better one. The current rules seem to have been perversely designed to minimize competitiveness and uncertainty.

      1. Would Newey still be calling for engine equalization and for Renault to provide its best-in-class PU to anyone who wanted it? I doubt it very much.

        That is completely irrelevant.

        Newey is right.

        If Red Bull/Renault had nailed the regulations, he wouldn’t be complaining … but if that had happened, Toto Wolff would be complaining and he would be right.

        (That’s actually a bad example because Merecedes isn’t at the mercy of the engine manufacturers like Red Bull is, but you get my point.)
        It’s not because Red Bull would gain from such a decision that they are wrong to ask for it.

    37. I wonder if the hypocrisy will end and Red Bull offers the exact same Tag-Heuer engine specs they’ve developed to any team that wants it? Including Renault.

      1. @selbbin, Red Bull isn’t actually developing their own PU. It isn’t allowed. It’s still the Renault PU they’ll be using, just another name. So it’s up to Renault to supply others if requested.

        1. It’s the Renault base engine with their own changes. That’s why they have to re-badge, because they are changing the electronics, recovery systems and more so it’s not a purely Renault engine anymore. Of coarse other teams can get the Tag-Heuer engine as long as Renault agrees that their base engine can be passed on with the changes. That’s a copyright thing and they’d probably just want to get paid for their parts. And since Renault likes customer teams, and had 4 in the past, why not? But I wonder if Red Bull will be so inclined to share their own development of the Renault engine if someone asks and Renault lets them? I doubt it.

          1. @selbbin

            It’s the Renault base engine with their own changes. That’s why they have to re-badge.

            Nope, there will only be one homologated Renault PU. The re-badging is a purely commercial decision.

        2. @me4me : I wasn’t aware that a currently customer team wasn’t allowed to develop its own engine, only that there are homologation rules requiring a standard engine to be presented to the FIA before the official start of the season. I thought it was simply a matter of economics and convenience that prevented a team like Sauber, Williams, Manor, Red Bull, etc from making their own engine.

          1. @drycrust, yeah the situation is pretty confusing. From what I understand the FIA declared it wasn’t happy for Red Bull to develop their own PU from a Renault base-unit because the regulations require one single homologated unit at any moment in time. With both Renault and Red Bull making their own version of the unit, there would be 2 units with the same base. They wouldn’t be different enough to be homologated as two separate PU concepts. So the only way for Red Bull would be to design a PU from scratch, which they don’t currently seem interested in.

            It’s possible though that Red Bull will develop some of the software and ancillary units.

            1. @me4me I guess the FIA would argue that since it was built with parts from a Renault engine then it needed to be done within Renault’s token allocation, and Renault could easily refuse to allow that to happen on the grounds they are the owner’s of the engine’s design and have their own design strategy.

    38. Newey want come back. :D

    39. These ads are beyond a joke.

      1. Well pay for the “ad-free” option.

      2. Use an ad-blocker then

    40. Two questions for Adrian Newey……

      1. Who supplies Mercedes / Ferrari with engines? Good, you got that right. No one does, they build their own engines.

      2. Are you also advocating that all cars should also have the same chassis and aerodynamics? Good, I didn’t think so.

      Do you get the point I’m making here, Adrian Newey?

      1. @stubbornswiss

        1. So every team who wants to be competitive should develop it’s own PU? That’s new. I can’t wait for the 10 F1 teams to each develop their own power-unit.

        2. There’s a level playing field for chassis and aerodynamics. You are not at the mercy of others to develop those.

    41. What isn’t clear to me in this situation is whether the customer teams are allowed to develop their own software? If a team can purchase the identical PU hardware from the manufacturer and choose to develop they’re own software for it , then I think Newey’s argument is empty. Software has been a *key* component of the PU for many years…

      1. Let’s open-source the software and see who makes the best of it then.

        Expecting teams to write software for those engines from scratch is completely unrealistic. Pretty sure these engines are full of proprietary blobs which makes it impossible to write your own software for it even if you wanted to.

    42. Were the engines really spec during the V8 era? From what I heard, Renault engines were not only better on fuel consumption (which allowed them to start the race with a lighter car), they also were designed specifically with exhaust-blowing effect in mind. As a result, the Renault V8 was the engine with the best drivability and the best fuel consumption (having a lighter car also helps tyre wear). Less fuel consumption also means a smaller fuel tank, which helps aerodynamically. They also had a more advanced exhaust-blowing effect than anyone else. The other engine manufacturers were stuck with the design they had, they didn’t even have tokens to spend. Ferrari in particular were quite vocal about this.

      That was what I would call an unfair disadvantage. Nobody is stopping Renault from spending their tokens wisely and effectively to catch Mercedes. No one is stopping Red Bull from building their own engines.

      Here’s a quote from Vettel about it:

      If Newey were to re-design those Red Bull with a Mercedes V8 engine, he’d require more space for the engine, a bigger fuel tank, a heavier car at the start of the race, and less exhaust-blowing tricks.

      Where was the cry about engine inequality back then?

      1. @kingshark

        As far as I know, exhaust-blowing only became a thing after the engine freeze. It’s therefore impossible that the Renault engine was developed with exhaust-blowing in mind. (Doesn’t mean that Renault didn’t ‘got lucky’ and the way they developed the engine turned out to help the development of the exhaust-blowing effect.)

    43. There is a simple solution to the dearth of competitive engine supplies which is to adopt a common set of engine rules between LMP1 and F1 with a leaning towards the more open rules of LMP1. This would bring four new engine suppliers into both F1 and LMP1 and allow the manufacturers to develop and test their technologies under different criteria in the two series. Simple but probably politically impossible.

    44. “I think the drivers championship should be won by the best driver and not the one with the best car.”

      Even the best drivers, eg Alonso, cannot win in a soap box. Vettel won one GP in a Toro Rosso. The best drivers are sought after by the teams with the best car because it’s team sport, not like Mo Farah running on the track. The driver is just one cog in a very big and costly machine.

    45. I may be wrong, but bear with me. How can Newey even suggest Mercedes and Ferrari supply the same fluid and software to customer teams when its really not that simple, even if they wanted to. F1 teams are hugely financed by SPONSORS, who gain, by being linked to and seen on these cars. Petronas, a major sponsor of Mercedes AMG Petronas (They are in the freaking name), sells oil and gas related products, its their business. Petronas positions themselves indirectly if not directly, as the supplier of the lubricants and lifeblood of the Mercedes CHAMPIONSHIP WINNING cars. Petronas can now say, their lubricants and gas are what makes their Mercedes engine beat the customer teams’ Mercedes engine. Ferrari has Shell, same freaking logic applies.

      Mercedes and Ferrari can sell their engines because that is their product, their value, the oil and lubricants, whether its expressed or not, belong to Shell and Petronas. Mercedes, the team, cannot sell that VALUE without making their alignment to Petronas worthless. Petronas would not allow Mercedes to give Red Bull their lubricants and gas, because thats their VALUE, not being acknowledged on the Red Bull cars. Red Bull would now have to be renamed Red Bull Petronas (Chuckle), if you catch my drift. Same logic applies to Ferrari and Shell.

      To summarise Mercedes can sell their engine to whomever has the money, but the lube, the lube is Petronas’. Ferrari can sell their engine to whomever has the money, but the lube, the lube is Shell’s.

    Comments are closed.